Tuesday, January 27, 2026

5 Steps to Leapfrog Growth

 Here's something to share with your local-direct clients: Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

5 Steps to Leapfrog Growth

Our ongoing uncertainty provides the ideal backdrop for challengers to leapfrog competitors and reset their position in the category.

Here’s why: When change hits, people get defensive. They look to hold their position. They play not to lose. Risk aversion replaces creative strategy, and data overrides instinct. In trying to apply data to predict the unpredictable customer brain, marketing ends up avoiding the very activities and approaches that can produce breakthroughs.

There’s a lot of that going around. The way to leapfrog is to take the opposite tack.

Think expansive, not incremental. It’s never been easier to try something new, learn from it, and pull back only after you've got proof that it doesn't have legs. Often, you'll find that you underestimated the potential of a strategy. Look to add, not eliminate. Designate the top 50% of your plan as Champion and focus the other 50% on beating it.

Get real about your business. Take a realistic approach to your business. Admit what’s thriving versus simply surviving (if even that). Then focus your investment on the parts that need the most help.


Say you have a product with inconsistent support from core customers, like a theme park families frequent. Package a new offer – date night maybe – to attract people with new occasions. That can add a new dimension to the business altogether.  

Set a bold growth standard. Make it clear, sequential, and supported by investment targets (how much you’ll invest in which aspects of the operation as you hit higher marks). Focus on transformative growth, setting benchmarks in increments of 25% or more. A target can be arbitrary, really anything that motivates your teams to aim high. Apply it to a specific segment (not the whole business), where you can dramatically alter the approach and demonstrate meaningful results quickly.

Align on outcomes. Define exactly what you’re trying to do, who’s in charge of each process, and set benchmarks before moving ahead. That prevents the cycle of fixing that competing agendas cause whenever you rush to execution (whether it’s a product, experience, or campaign). To develop this skill with your team, practice confronting opposing goals on a spectrum. They’ll learn and reinforce that it’s more important to unify and focus on a targeted objective than to pick the “right” thing (or, worse, try to do everything). 

Go on offense. Disregard the impulse to “focus on what we know works” and make the predominant model -- 80% core, 20% test -- your worst-case scenario. Instead, make option 1 the biggest leapfrog growth opportunities (e.g. 50% net new things, 50% champions). Option 2 is more conservative, where you pick one audience or one part of the plan to completely rethink.

The key is rethinking, re-energizing, and reinvesting while your competition reliably retracts and retrenches. Commit to it and you can transcend the chaos of price-centric competition.

FCC Pushes Late Night for Equal Time Laughs - Politically Speaking

 

FCC Pushes Late Night for Equal Time Laughs - Politically Speaking

Going forward, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seems to believe late-night entertainment needs some extra deep bipartisan laughter, smirks, or winks.

Since the early 1990s, late-night TV shows -- long considered “news programs” -- started getting a waiver when it comes to “equal time” rules.

Those rules mean giving TV stations/programs airtime to all legally qualified political candidates after a program or station agreed and aired an interview of one of those candidates.

The waiver came about with the idea these TV talk shows were not truly straight-ahead news programming.

Now in published guidance on its website on Wednesday, the FCC says it could end that waiver.


“The FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona
fide news exemption.”

Recently, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has implied that if certain programs like “The View” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live” appear to have partisan motivations with interviews of certain politicians, that could risk TV station licenses.

Take the broader look of the playing field: So should we then look at all kinds of programming including -- perhaps Fox News Channel's “Gutfeld” or other politically focused new shows that regularly have a strong entertainment and/or comedy bent?

“Gutfeld” -- a show that has been on the air since 2016 -- now regularly competes for late night viewers with the likes of “Jimmy Kimmel!”, “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and “The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon.”

The show films in front of a live audience and also regularly interviews politicians, as do other late-night shows. “Gutfeld” guests almost always come from the Republican party or conservative-leaning commentators.

What type of shows should we now expect? Typically, giving equal time to an opposing candidate in a specific time period on a TV station or program.

But perhaps the declining, near-live linear TV needs a bit of juicing. What if a late-night TV talk show -- every now and then -- schedules both candidates' appearances at the same time by a late-night host?

I'm thinking this would be part debate and part comedy team bit/part TV network "roast" -- the latter of which always seems to offer up some ribald humor coming from hints of imbibing special drinks.

If the FCC is looking to perhaps loosen up TV over the air rule making, somewhat wilder late-night entertainment would result.
So everyone wins -- bipartisan-ly!

How Much Sports Can Legacy Networks Add To Prime Time?

 

Commentary

How Much Sports Can Legacy Networks Add To Prime Time?

NBCUniversal's efforts around its "Legendary February" sports-intensive month have TV Watch mulling the future of sports -- in prime time.

What if sports becomes even more common -- on a daily basis -- within a network’s traditional mix of entertainment, news and sports programming?

On February 8, NBC and its streamer Peacock will begin its more than two-week coverage of the Milan Cortina Winter Olympics starting at 7 a.m. ET.

Then around noon, NBC/Peacock will air the Super Bowl -- the longtime reigning annual champion when it comes to a single program airing every year, with around 120 million Nielsen-measured viewers.

The game between the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots is a rematch of sorts of its Super Bowl game back in 2015.

The following weekend -- starting February 15, for the first time in 20 years -- NBC will produce the NBA All-Star Weekend in Los Angeles.

Its big promotional "Legendary" month comes as NBC has continued to load up on other sports year round -- with Big Ten football and basketball, Notre Dame Football, Big East basketball, Big 12 basketball, Premier League, and golf. Later this year WNBA starts up for the first time, and Major League Baseball.


Other networks such as Fox have been doing this as well -- with NFL football, Major League Baseball and many other sports leagues and content.

Sports are estimated to comprise roughly 28% of Fox's overall prime-time telecasts, according to MoffettNathanson Research.

Looking at a broader view, sports content comprises only about 3% of the total hours that broadcast networks air, according to Nielsen.

But it makes up much more of overall viewing. For example, in November 2025, sports comprised 37% of all broadcast viewing, per Nielsen's The Gauge measure, largely due to NFL, MLB World Series games and college football.

So going forward, can legacy broadcast networks add even more --- perhaps airing valuable live regular sports content in prime time everyday?

This would continue to run alongside what remains of its mostly non-live entertainment TV shows.

Looking two or three years down the line, one can imagine that despite still limited reach, TV networks streaming platforms will have growing strength.

Why not yield to that direction -- at least to an extent?

TV networks like NBC will still want to run new shows like “Chicago Fire,” “Chicago Med” and “Chicago PD” to get the promotional appeal (for airings on Peacock, for example) and higher-priced legacy TV advertising revenue.

Imagine just a few years from now: Does this mean at least a regular time slot, say 8 p.m. in the evening, featuring some live sports content -- major, minor, or unusual?

How much else can TV networks add to sports content and change the dynamics of what prime time has traditionally meant?

Thursday, January 8, 2026

VAB Pushes Broader Guarantees Based on Households, Persons 2+

 

VAB Pushes Broader Guarantees Based on Households, Persons 2+

TV advertising trade association the Video Advertising Bureau (VAB) is recommending a shift to broader viewership guarantees, amid concerns over data stability for niche audiences, driven by declining linear TV ratings.

The VAB is guiding brands and TV networks to agree to audience guarantees based either on households or persons two years and older -- and dropping specific demographic-age guarantees such as 18-49 and 25-54.

The VAB says this guidance should go into effect immediately for current, near-term scatter market deals -- as well as the upcoming TV upfront marketplace that begins in early June and continues through the summer.

Brands begin to secure inventory through upfront advertising deals for the TV season starting in September and running though August of the following year.

“With 2026 buyers and sellers having such precision targeting insights refined so deeply on behaviors and identity that so surpass partial age/sex groupings, those aggregations seem outmoded and artificial,” says Sean Cunningham, chief executive office/president of the VAB.

Although making guarantees across wider audiences provides stability, Cunningham adds that brands can then use all the advanced targeting that comes with their first-party focused too

In addition, the VAB says, this will help evaluating with more of an apples-to-apples comparisons when brands make more cross platforms media buys.

This recommended change is occurring as linear TV networks -- broadcast and cable -- continue to lose audiences to alternative digital media channels, especially streaming platforms.

For some time now, Cunningham has been highly critical of Nielsen, pushing the measurement company to update its process to reflect new digitally focused fragmented viewing habits, especially coming from streaming, to offer more granular, transparent data for advertisers.

Late last year, he heavily criticized Nielsen's newly installed Big Data + Panel TV measurement system which started up for the TV season in September 2025 for its "deep instability" and "high variability".

WBD Rejects Paramount's Deal - Again








WBD Rejects Paramount's Deal - Again

Warner Bros. Discovery has again put the kibosh on Paramount Skydance's effort to buy the company.

"Paramount's latest offer remains inferior to our merger agreement with Netflix across multiple key areas," said Samuel DiPiazza, Jr., chair of the Warner Bros. Discovery Board of Directors, in a release.

Di Piazza says there is insufficient value to WBD shareholders -- as well as lack of protection for shareholders -- if the $30-per-share-in-cash offer is not completed.

WBD reiterated that Netflix's offer of $27.75 in cash and stock for WBD’s studios and streaming business is still a superior value without any significant risks, adding that the Paramount deal contains an “extraordinary amount of debt financing” that as a leveraged buyout, would in effect encumber the company with $87 billion in gross debt.


The company also is concerned that the long period needed to complete the deal -- estimated to be 12 to 18 months -- would affect ongoing programming and sports licensing deals.

By comparison, Netflix is in a strong financial position, with a market capitalization of $400 billion.

After WBD's initial rejection of Paramount’s offer, the company added a personal guarantee from billionaire Larry Ellison, the father of Paramount chief executive David Ellison, for $40.4 billion of equity financing.

The key, says Richard Greenfield, media analyst of Lightshed Partners, is what value WBD gives to its cable TV networks, previously intended to be spun off under the name Discovery Global.

Paramount's deal includes cable TV networks, while Netflix's does not.

“It is crystal clear that the WBD Board sees tremendous value in splitting the company up as soon as possible,” writes Greenfield. “Taking the Paramount offer would force WBD to abandon its plans to split the company.”

In addition to high expected value in a spinoff, Greenfield believes other higher value could be gained for Discovery Global by just a sale to another company.

“We firmly believe Discovery Global is for sale,” he says. ”Bidders have already approached WBD as part of its strategic review process.”

He believes that Paramount “not only needs to raise its bid substantially above $30/share (one or two dollars incremental is likely irrelevant), it also needs to change the composition of its bid to absorb the billions of costs associated with abandoning the Netflix bid and shift the financing from mostly debt to mostly cash.”

From Inertia to Action: Marketing's AI Reckoning and the Road Ahead

 

From Inertia to Action: Marketing's AI Reckoning and the Road Ahead

If 2025 had a soundtrack, it would have been a long unresolved chord, tension without release, motion without movement. On paper, it looked like a breakthrough year. AI promised acceleration, markets hinted at recovery, and brand leaders felt early sparks of momentum. But somewhere along the way, the industry sunk into quicksand.

After three decades in this business, I thought I’d seen it all: the commercial internet boom, ecommerce, mobile, social media, streaming wars. Each disruption forced adaptation—testing new channels, hiring digital-first partners, failing fast. We didn’t always swing right, but at least we swung. In 2025, that spirit stalled.

Marketers Did a Lot of Thinking and Not a Lot of Doing
As I spoke with colleagues, one word defined the year: inertia. The C-suite spent more time scenario planning than executing. AI fears, tariffs, and macro uncertainty became excuses for indecision. Budgets froze. Briefs languished. RFP timelines stretched from three months to nine. Media budgets were revised endlessly as every dollar demanded legal justification.


AI: Disruption or Distraction?
AI wasn’t catastrophic, but it was paralyzing. It became scapegoat, savior, and boogeyman. The truth? AI didn’t break marketing. It exposed deeper issues: lack of skill development, obsession with short-term savings, and vanity metrics that never reflected real impact. Clients noticed. Trust wavered. Agencies scrambled to prove value beyond dashboards.

The Great Measurement Meltdown
AI quietly rewrote the rules. Search visibility destabilized. Organic and paid channels reshuffled. Attribution—the industry’s security blanket—frayed. The scaffolding built for incremental ROI proved flimsy. Yet chaos brought clarity. Studies like the World Advertising Research Center’s “The Multiplier Effect” reminded us: User-centric storytelling matters; trust is infrastructure; brand health outlasts channel hacks. Affiliate content blurred lines, Reddit rewired influence, and neglected narratives showed fragility.

Fear is Not a Marketing Strategy
2025 felt heavy. Holding companies preached consolidation while cutting jobs. Creatives questioned their worth. Media planners wondered if platforms would erase “hands on keyboards.” Both client and agency teams reassessed careers and priorities.

The dust hasn’t settled. We don’t know what the next five years hold—but maybe this reckoning was overdue. Many admitted the year forced uncomfortable soul-searching, the kind that precedes progress.

So, was 2025 a loss? No, it was a wake-up call. Automation won’t solve an identity crisis. Measurement was humbled. Legacy models cracked. Brands rediscovered connection. If 2024 was AI hype, 2025 was the hangover: messy, revealing, necessary.

2026: The Year of AI Action
The fear fog is lifting. Marketers can’t sit still. The mandate: Make AI-driven marketing effective now. Reinvent performance marketing—balance brand and demand, measure full-funnel, prove impact. Integrate AI into that mindset. New roles will emerge to manage AI like media once was. Storytelling will democratize as AI enables premium creative for all. Pricing will shift to outcomes, not usage. Performance marketing evolves from ROI to orchestrating results across human and machine contributors. The brands that thrive will embrace complexity, leverage AI for efficiency, and double down on creativity.

Answer Engine Optimization for Brands Marketing to Moms: Schema Is Essential

 

Commentary

Answer Engine Optimization for Brands Marketing to Moms: Schema Is Essential

If your brand sells to moms, your content is already competing in a different arena than it was even a year ago. Search is no longer just about ranking. It’s about being chosen as the answer by large language models and highlighted in AI search results.

For brands marketing to moms, answer engine optimization (AEO) is quickly becoming one of the most important levers you can control.

The brands winning right now are not just producing content. They are structuring it, so machines understand it clearly and trust it.

The most overlooked tool in that equation is schema.  Schema is structured data that tells search engines and AI systems what your content is, not just what it says. When you use schema correctly, you remove the guesswork for large language models (LLMs).

LLMs seek out credible, well-organized content for AI search responses, and schema increases the likelihood that moms searching will find you and your product.

Schema tells LLMs that content on your web pages was written by an expert and contains real questions with real answers -- content that reflects verified experience and will help someone find a solution.


Why moms changed search first

Moms have always searched differently. They don’t browse casually. They ask specific, emotional, high-stakes questions like “Is it safe?” and “What age is best for this product?”

LLMs and AI-powered search engines are designed to answer those kinds of questions exactly. That’s why mom-focused content is disproportionately surfaced in AI results -- but only if the content is structured properly. This is where most brand blogs fall short, because they lack schema.

Not all schema types are created equal. A few do the heavy lifting for brand managers running content programs:

Blog Posting or Article schema
Every educational blog post, buying guide, or brand story should use this as a foundation. It establishes legitimacy and gives AI confidence that your content is informational, not just promotional.

FAQ Page schema
This is the single most powerful schema type for mom-focused content. Moms search in questions, and AI answers in questions. FAQ schema bridges that gap cleanly. Brands that add FAQs intentionally and mark them up correctly are far more likely to be pulled into AI-generated answers.

Product schema
If your blog includes product recommendations, usage guidance, or feature explanations, product schema helps AI understand when your content is relevant to a purchase decision. Make sure to number or bullet your information so the models can easily scan your content.

Review and Rating schema
Trust matters more to moms than to almost any other audience. Reviews signal experience and for AEO, they tell AI that your content reflects real-world usage, not just brand messaging.

How To schema
This is especially valuable for brands that publish routines, setup guides, or usage steps. If your content includes steps, it should be treated as instructional content by AI, so make sure you number each step.

Person and Organization schema
These establish authority. They connect content across your site, reinforce credibility, and help AI understand who stands behind the information.

Common mistakes brands make with schema

  1. Overusing schema on every element
  2. Stacking multiple plugins that conflict
  3. Adding review stars where no review exists
  4. Ignoring FAQ schema entirely
  5. Relying on default SEO settings without customizing for your brand

Brand managers should apply schema across content creator social posts, brand and product blogs, YouTube descriptions and mom blogger reviews.

When schema is paired with strong messaging and real insight into mom behavior, the impact compounds.  AEO allows brands to show up on Google when moms are searching for products, services and solutions.  Schema helps your content appear when moms search.